Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

worcesteradam

Osama bin Laden bought a plane from that boneyard once.It happens to be a major CIA facility. It is tied to Clark AFB in the Philippines which is the head of the US militaries Pacific operations.I see no evidence though that Pinal was involved in 911.

Logged

worcesteradam

When al-Qaeda was moving into the Sudan in 1993, bin Laden asked al-Ridi, then living in Texas, to buy a light aircraft to ferry Stinger missiles and other materiel the group had acquired in Afghanistan. With $250,000, al-Ridi purchased a 1960s Sabre-40 jet from the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group in Arizona.[1]

Since the plane had a range of only 1,500 miles, al-Ridi was forced to make a seven-leg journey to deliver the plane, flying to Sault Sainte Marie, then to Frobisher Bay where -65 weather cracked a windshield and burst the hydraulics, causing him to lose a week repairing the aircraft. Finally he embarked to Iceland, through Europe and finally arriving in Cairo, before embarking on the final leg of his trip.[1]

A year and a half after delivering the plane, al-Ridi was called back to Khartoum, where he met with Ihab Ali Nawawi, and was informed that improper maintenance made the plane inoperable. Wadi el-Hage requested that the pair fix the aircraft, and then take it back to Cairo to re-sell it.[3]

The pair of them tried to repair the plane, its tires had melted to the runway and its engines were filled with sand. The brakes failed after a test flight with both men flying, and the plane crashed into a sand dune.[3]

The event attracted public attention, since the plane was unique in being a private aircraft at Khartoum International Airport and known to belong to Osama bin Laden. Worried that the Egyptian Mukhabarat would learn of his whereabouts, al-Ridi fled the Sudan.

Osama bin Laden bought a plane from that boneyard once.It happens to be a major CIA facility. It is tied to Clark AFB in the Philippines which is the head of the US militaries Pacific operations.I see no evidence though that Pinal was involved in 911.

Among the numerous views held by those espousing “9/11 truth,” one central idea remains the same: The United States government is complicit in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

An article in the New York Post this week, boldly titled “How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11,” details how the highest levels of the US government not only helped conceal Saudi involvement but assisted the perpetrators in escaping the country.

The Cover-upNYPost

“The kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement,” Paul Sperry writes. “Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.”

Everyone from Join Terrorism Task Force members to FBI agents and Virginia law enforcement say that despite evidence leading to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, investigations were derailed repeatedly by higher ups.

“Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with ‘foreign support for the September 11 hijackers’ — details ‘incontrovertible evidence’ gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.”

The Saudi Connection

One name specifically, that of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, commonly known as “Bandar Bush” due to his longtime relationship with the president, came up frequently during investigations.

“Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego,” Sperry continues.

Upon learning of the agent’s knowledge, State Department officials responded not by detaining Bandar, but by providing him with round-the-clock protection.

“An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally,” the article says. “He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.”

Former FBI agent John Guandolo, a Washington field agent who investigated Bandar following 9/11, says the Saudi should have undoubtedly been treated as a suspect.

“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”

The Getaway

The article goes on to state that just two days after the attack, Bandar visited the White House to enjoy several cigars with President Bush before being granted safe passage out of the country with other Saudis.

“After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list,” Sperry says. “Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.”

NYTIMESThen-White House adviser Richard Clarke also stated in 2003 that he aided the Saudis escape after being assured by FBI agents that they had been cleared of wrongdoing.

“The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism,” Times writer Eric Lichtblau stated.

The Saudi Panic

In response to growing knowledge of the Saudi’s role, the Islamic kingdom has threatened to “sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States” if legislation backing the release of the 28 pages is passed.

“Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts,” writes The New York Times.

Although such information is devastating to the US, Saudi Arabia and the “official story” of September 11, much of it has been public since the years following the attack.

The Other Whistleblowers

Largely ignored by the press is the countless other government officials who also say they experienced similar treatment when trying to investigate America’s largest ever terror attack.

Former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on domestic surveillance during the Bush presidency, has commented repeatedly on NSA intelligence that would have “undoubtedly” stopped 9/11.

“The NSA had critical intelligence about Al Qaeda and associated movements in particular that had never been properly shared outside of NSA,” Drake said in 2014. “They simply did not share critical intelligence although they had it.”

Former senior intelligence officer Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer was similarly sidelined by the Defense Intelligence Agency for blowing the whistle on covered up operations that identified two terrorist cells later charged for the 9/11 attacks.

“I had no intention of joining the ranks of ‘whistle blowers,’” Shaffer said in 2009. “When I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office.”

Shaffer also joined the Alex Jones Show well over one year ago to discuss the Saudi’s role in 9/11 and the 28 pages.

Former FBI wiretap translator Sibel Edmonds, who had access to top-secret communications, also stated in 2004 that the FBI had detailed 9/11 foreknowledge that specifically mentioned a terrorist attack involving airplanes.

“We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available,” Edmonds said. “There was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should’ve alerted the people to the threat we’re facing.”

9/11 Truth & The 2016 Election

The 28 pages are now so mainstream that presidential candidates are being forced to find a stance on the topic.

The first candidate to touch the subject was none other than Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump, who earlier this year pointed the finger at Saudi Arabia.

“But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center,” Trump said at a campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina. “Because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”

Other candidates have been less forward.

Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton refused to say Monday whether she had even seen the 28 pages at all.

“I am not commenting,” she said.

Although Clinton has remained tight-lipped, her and fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders are backing legislation that would allow families of loved ones killed in the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi government.

“Obviously, we’ve got to make anyone who participates in or supports terrorism pay a price, and we also have to be aware of any consequences that might affect Americans, either military or civilian or our nation,” Clinton told ABC.

Before dropping out, Republican Jeb Bush was confronted twice by Infowars reporters on the Saudi link.

“Ya, I’d like to see em,” Bush said. “You got ’em?”

Jeb again quipped during the second encounter, asking if the reporter could supply him with a copy.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has placed a hold on legislation that would open the door for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

Graham (R-S.C.), who is a co-sponsor of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, put the hold on his own bill over concerns that new changes could expose the U.S. to legal attacks.

Edits made last week by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) might expand the scope, Graham told reporters on Tuesday, potentially putting the U.S. at risk of legal retaliation because of actions by individuals or unsavory allies“I want to make sure that anything we do doesn’t come to bite us,” Graham told reporters in the basement of the Senate.

“Anything we do in this bill can be used against us later. So let's say there’s a situation where you’ve got an American in a consulate or an embassy that’s got their own grudge against a government,” he said. “We want to make sure that we’re not liable for that.”

Sessions, for his part, suggested that he shared Graham’s underlying concerns about the potential for the bill to expose the U.S. to legal attacks. Ultimate responsibility for settling the issue, he said, ought to belong with the Obama administration.

“Generally you get leadership from the State Department,” Sessions said on Tuesday. “But when the chips were down, they never produced any real assistance.”

“Somewhere along the line the president is going to need to review it, get his best team on it and if it’s not good for America, he should veto it or try to provide leadership.”

The lingering unease about the bill’s ramifications hints at the legal minefield that lawmakers need to navigate; the measure has gained new prominence amid President Obama’s travel to Saudi Arabia this week.Saudi officials have strongly opposed the bill and threatened to sell off $750 billion of U.S. assets should it be enacted.

The White House has come out against the legislation, because of what it claims would be dangerous precedent that could erode the legal system of sovereign immunity.

“If we open up the possibility that individuals and the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries,” Obama said in an interview with CBS broadcast early Tuesday.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) expressed skepticism on Tuesday of the legislation, which is backed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), who are both leaders in their Senate caucuses.“I think we need to look at it,” Ryan told reporters at a news conference. “I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies and that we’re not catching people in this that shouldn’t be caught up in this.”

Graham also raised the case of the People's Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian Kurdish forces that the U.S. has relied upon in the growing chaos of the Syrian civil war.

Despite being a critical tool of the U.S. in Syria, the YPG are allied with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a Kurdish nationalist group in Turkey considered terrorists by both Washington and Ankara.

“If they go out and commit a terrorist act somewhere else against Turkey, I don’t want to be held liable because that’s not what we were sponsoring,” Graham said.

“Some of our allies are a bit dubious. I want to make sure that because we find common ground in one area, we don’t own these people forever because of whatever they do.”

The changes from Sessions have yet to be made public. An official with the Alabama Republican’s office did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the edits.

“The change that was made by Sen. Sessions may be a good change. It may limit the application of the bill in a way that protects us down the road,” Graham told reporters. “I really think I know what he’s trying to do."But I’ve had a couple of questions that I hadn’t gotten an answer to yet, and so we’re working on it.”